Well, lucky for me they wrote it down.

>Two can play at that your game:

I think you presumed my game was taking the words so literally as to sacrifice their meaning for some semantic argument.

You were wrong. When the author said "it corrects this gap" what they meant was, "it attempts to correct this gap", which is what I was arguing against.

>Would that be so bad?

Yes. Because it reframes the entire conversation toward the human instinct to use an abundance of caution around their offspring. Including children in the narrative, such as "poisoning our drinking water with X amount of toxin Y which is over Z legal amount is bad for everyone, but even more so for children as they're smaller and more susceptible to lower levels of toxins than adults" is fine. It has all the elements required. Amounts, legal limits, some scientific, quantifiable data that can be argued against. Simply saying "voting for this bill will murder children" is an appeal to emotion. It offers no evidence that can be argued with and presumes you're either in favor of murdering children or you're on the side of the author.

This isn't established by the author, it's just another Woke Kult pamphlet talking point put out by Marxists.

>A) that saving more childrens' lives is preferable to saving fewer, B) that redirecting more wealth to children's charities will save the lives of more children

This is the appeal to emotion. There's no argument that connects those two things. As I said in another discussion in this thread, you may as well couch this decision in terms of

A. Saving children's lives is preferable to not.

B. Voting Republican saves more children's lives.

And then just arguing that saying "vote Republican to save children's lives" is an effective way to convince people to vote Republican. The inference being that voting Republican is the way to save children's lives.

>For instance, even if it’s true that such amount of CO2 will kill Y many children, you may not realize this if the information isn’t given to you in a form that will make this apparent to you.

The argument being made is that CO2 will kill children, when there's no indication that this is the case at all. While one might weigh purchasing a product vs releasing CO2 (which is a very strange way of looking at it, as the product is already created), we bypass the scientific argument around how CO2 kills children and instead appeal to your emotions.

You may as well say "For every time you vote Democrat, you kill a child. How many children are you willing to kill to satisfy your own need to feel like a social justice warrior hero?"

it's an appeal to emotion.

In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy. It's often used to try to make someone's position look more tenable by essentially saying that the choices are, do as I say, or face unspeakable horrors.

For instance, patriots do not destroy monuments or shrines or works of art. Look at the forces that destroy these things now, and you will see tyrants, authoritarians, anarchists and subversives. The Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha, the activists hurling paint at paintings, those who tear down statues because their regime doesn't want to be reminded of the past, these are not patriots.

Development is required for humanity to grow and thrive, yet it's described as desecration. The unspoken alternative being that humanity die off, for lack of land to cultivate into agricultural gain.

These aren't the choices and presenting the options here, seems to suggest that either the Earth will be "desecrated", and children killed, or people will have culture and civilization.

I think our time would be better spent reminding humanity to be careful how we judge progress, if it's clearly reckless and damaging. As humanity expands, space on Earth becomes less available and we should plan better for an Earth with 10, 20 or 30 billion people on it.

Further, the more we learn about renewable energy, reduced waste and recycling, the better we'll do exploring the universe outside of Earth.

>the author is presupposing that some bad thing.... he's arguing that appealing to emotion can be an effective tactic for influencing human behavior,

To correct things that he's saying are wrong. "Publishing prices in percentage Child Lives Not Saved corrects a different gap in the information that prices communicate."

Really. It corrects this gap? The author is presuming a problem, in terms of child's lives that could be saved. There's no indication that a single child's life could have been saved and wasn't due to someone not donating to charity, at least in terms of quantifiable evidence. We can all postulate that with infinite wealth, no children would die who could be saved by wealth, but even then, given how charities actually operate, there's no guarantee of that.

So we're riding right past the part where we justify the metric of "child lives not saved" and presuming that children are dying FOR ONLY THE REASON OF people not giving money to the right sources. Couching things in this nature, is appeal to emotion. Literally, "think of the children!"

A more abstract measure, avoiding the fallacy, would be to propose all goods be priced in terms of popular social metrics like "bridges that could be built" or "parks that could be created" etc. Specifically claiming that children are dying due to the action or inaction of the consumer is pure tugging at the heartstrings.

As I see it, anyway.

This is just the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Not even dressed up. Just... here it is.